Matter of Smith

Indiana Supreme Court

Matter of Smith

588 N.E.2d 1268, 1992 Ind. LEXIS 90, 1992 WL 60035

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 25, 1992

Docket28S00-8806-DI-532

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 588 N.E.2d 1268 (Matter of Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Smith, 588 N.E.2d 1268, 1992 Ind. LEXIS 90, 1992 WL 60035 (Ind. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

PER CURIAM.

On October 2, 1991, 579 N.E.2d 450, this Court handed down its opinion in this disciplinary case finding misconduct and imposing a public reprimand. The case is now before us on a petition by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission for clarification of the imposed sanction.

In imposing a public reprimand for Respondent's single act of neglecting to timely file a Motion to Correct Error, this Court took judicial notice of the fact that the Respondent had engaged in misconduct on two prior occasions and had been sanctioned accordingly. In re Smith (1976), 266 Ind. 6, 351 N.E.2d 1 (public reprimand), In re Smith (1986), 487 N.E.2d 138 (thirty day suspension). In light of his prior acts of misconduct, Respondent's single act of neglect exhibited in the present case warranted a public reprimand.

We further conclude that prior misconduct is a factor to be brought to the attention of this Court and the Hearing Officers and considered in the assessment of disciplinary sanctions.

The Commission's Petition for Clarification is hereby granted, and the per curiam opinion of October 2, 1991, issued in this case is supplemented as herein set out.

DeBRULER, J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

PER CURIAM.

On October 2, 1991, 579 N.E.2d 450, this Court handed down its opinion in this disciplinary case finding misconduct and imposing a public reprimand. The case is now before us on a petition by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission for clarification of the imposed sanction.

In imposing a public reprimand for Respondent's single act of neglecting to timely file a Motion to Correct Error, this Court took judicial notice of the fact that the Respondent had engaged in misconduct on two prior occasions and had been sanctioned accordingly. In re Smith (1976), 266 Ind. 6, 351 N.E.2d 1 (public reprimand), In re Smith (1986), 487 N.E.2d 138 (thirty day suspension). In light of his prior acts of misconduct, Respondent's single act of neglect exhibited in the present case warranted a public reprimand.

We further conclude that prior misconduct is a factor to be brought to the attention of this Court and the Hearing Officers and considered in the assessment of disciplinary sanctions.

The Commission's Petition for Clarification is hereby granted, and the per curiam opinion of October 2, 1991, issued in this case is supplemented as herein set out.

DeBRULER, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

588 N.E.2d 1268, 1992 Ind. LEXIS 90, 1992 WL 60035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-smith-ind-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack